Although successful in generating transformative learning experiences, these courses expose significant fracture points worth interrogating as educators, activists, and global health practitioners. Ultimately, we have identified a need for building equitable partnerships and intentional community, embracing discomfort, and moving beyond reflection to praxis in global health education.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to review changes in the prevalence of opioid use disorder in pregnancy, and to describe the prenatal care and neonatal outcomes following the implementation of buprenorphine treatment at a large US obstetrical clinic during the on-going opioid epidemic. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 310 women (332 pregnancies) with opioid use disorders and their neonates delivered between June 2006 and December 2010 at an obstetrical clinic in the US. Trends in patient volume, characteristics and outcomes by calendar year were assessed using the Cochran–Armitage test and linear regression.ResultsThere was an almost two-fold increase in the volume of pregnant women treated annually from 2006 through 2010. Most women were treated with methadone (74%), with buprenorphine becoming more common over calendar time: 3.0% in 2006 to 41% in 2010. The mean dose of buprenorphine at delivery was: 11.4 mg in 2007, 14.1 mg in 2008, 14.1 mg in 2009, and 16.8 mg in 2010; an average increase of 2.1 mg year. There were no differences in mean methadone dose over time. From 2006 to 2010 there were increases in the prevalence of prescribed concomitant psychotropic medications and vaginal deliveries, and in the proportion of neonates treated pharmacologically for neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). NAS pharmacologic management also varied by calendar year with more use of neonatal morphine and clonidine in later years.ConclusionsThe number of mother–infant pairs increased significantly from 2006 to 2010 and the clinical characteristics of these patients changed over time. Our experience reflects the rising increase in opioid use disorders in pregnancy and NAS, mandating the need for expansion of comprehensive prenatal care options for these women and their children.

Background Risk factors associated with preeclampsia in HIV-infected women remain largely unknown. Systemic angiogenic imbalance contributes to preeclampsia in HIV-uninfected women, but changes in angiogenic markers after HAART initiation have not been studied. Methods The Mma Bana study randomized 560 HIV-infected, HAART-naive pregnant women with CD4 counts ≥ 200 cells/mm3 between 26–34 weeks gestation to lopinavir/ritonavir/zidovudine/lamivudine or abacavir/zidovudine/lamivudine. Another 170 participants with CD4 counts < 200 cells/mm3 initiated nevirapine/zidovudine/lamivudine between 18–34 weeks gestation. Characteristics of 11 women who developed preeclampsia were compared with the remaining722 Mma Bana participants who delivered, using logistic regression. Plasma samples drawn at HAART initiation and one month later from 60 women without preeclampsia and at HAART initiation for all11 preeclamptic women were assayed for placental growth factor (PlGF) and soluble FMS toll-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1), Results Pre-HAART viral load > 100,000 copies/ml was associated with preeclampsia (OR 5.8; 95% CI 1.8, 19.4; p = 0.004). Median pre-HAART PlGF level was lower and sFLT-1 was higher in women who developed preeclampsia versus those who did not (130 vs 992 pg/ml, p=0.001; 17.5 vs 9.4 pg/ml, p=0.03, respectively). In multivariate analysis, PlGF and viral load remained significantly associated with preeclampsia. No significant changes in angiogenic factors were noted after 1 month of HAART treatment among non-preeclamptic women. Conclusions Pre-HAART viral load > 100,000 copies/ml and PlGF predicted preeclampsia among women starting HAART in pregnancy. Among non-preeclamptic women, HAART treatment did not significantly alter levels of PlGF or sFlt-1 one month into treatment.

In this needs assessment, Haitian physicians identified lack of support for clinical decision making, poor access to CME activities, limited professional development, and absence of employment opportunities as key areas of need in support of their clinical and professional work.